blueyedpoet
Refugee
I had to write this for one of my classes. Everyone's thoughts and opinions are welcome.
Necessary Existance
After the apparent earth-shattering conclusion of Meditation I - it is possible that nothing is truly known - and the re-grouping effort begun in Meditation II, Rene Descartes attempts to prove that “God exists necessarily” in the third Meditation. Descartes does this by beginning with the notion that he is, if nothing else, a thinking thing. Even a possible deceitful god - which Descartes believes to be the only reason to openly doubt everything - could not deceive one about their existence. In other words, one has to exist in order to be deceived.
From this, he realizes he must prove the existence of God before he can determine if such a being deceives. And so, Descartes reflects on what thinking things do. They think thoughts. Descartes stratifies thoughts in two fields: 1) images (or ideas); 2) formal. The latter can also be categorized as objective thoughts; the kind of thoughts that require some object. According to the writer, some thoughts in this category are often called volitions, emotions, or judgments. As to the former (thoughts as images or ideas), Descartes believes that some are innate (from within the thinker), some are adventitious (from outside sources), while others are simply creations of the thinker. As an almost “for the record” Descartes clarifies two things about adventitious ideas: 1) they must be so as to not depend on the thinker’s will; 2) they still may come from things inside the person - some other faculty might produce these ideas within the thinker.
Descartes goes on to further dissect ideas. In one sense, ideas are simply one mode of thought. They are, in other words, one form in which thoughts exist. In another sense, ideas are like images. With this in mind, he proceeds to articulate that an image of something is never more real than the something itself. The object (cause or model) of some idea (effect of cause) has to have at least as much reality as the idea. Upon further reflection, he realizes also that something cannot come from nothing, nor can something great come from something less great. In addition, Descartes states that “although one idea may originate from another, there cannot be an infinite regress here; eventually one must reach a primary idea.”
What conclusions can be reached here? Descartes asks. After careful thought, he puts forth that if any of his ideas (images) turns out to be so great that they could not originate within himself, it would mean that there must be some other cause. The obvious question that follows then is, is there such a great idea? Descartes proceeds to go through a list of ideas. There are ideas which represent the infinite (God), and there are ideas which represent the finite. According to Descartes finite ideas come in two classes - the inanimate and the corporeal. Descartes has little, if any, trouble in realizing that inanimate ideas can easily be explained away as the thinker synthesizing other images to create new ones. For example, the idea of an angel might just be the idea of a person and the idea of wings sown together. As far as corporeal ideas are concerned, Descartes claims to see any such greatness that would be difficult that would make them inconceivable to the thinker.
However, the infinite realm does seem inconceivable to Descartes. The very description of God seems impossible to Descartes to fully understand. God, as he understands, is “a substance that is infinte, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else.” These characteristics are far too great for Descartes to comprehend. Since this is the case, God necessarily exists as the cause of the idea of God. Furthermore, when considering God exists as the cause, along with the notions that the cause cannot be any less great than the effect (the idea), and an object is only perfect if it exists, Descartes states the perfect cause must exist. “God necessarily exists.”
Necessary Existance
After the apparent earth-shattering conclusion of Meditation I - it is possible that nothing is truly known - and the re-grouping effort begun in Meditation II, Rene Descartes attempts to prove that “God exists necessarily” in the third Meditation. Descartes does this by beginning with the notion that he is, if nothing else, a thinking thing. Even a possible deceitful god - which Descartes believes to be the only reason to openly doubt everything - could not deceive one about their existence. In other words, one has to exist in order to be deceived.
From this, he realizes he must prove the existence of God before he can determine if such a being deceives. And so, Descartes reflects on what thinking things do. They think thoughts. Descartes stratifies thoughts in two fields: 1) images (or ideas); 2) formal. The latter can also be categorized as objective thoughts; the kind of thoughts that require some object. According to the writer, some thoughts in this category are often called volitions, emotions, or judgments. As to the former (thoughts as images or ideas), Descartes believes that some are innate (from within the thinker), some are adventitious (from outside sources), while others are simply creations of the thinker. As an almost “for the record” Descartes clarifies two things about adventitious ideas: 1) they must be so as to not depend on the thinker’s will; 2) they still may come from things inside the person - some other faculty might produce these ideas within the thinker.
Descartes goes on to further dissect ideas. In one sense, ideas are simply one mode of thought. They are, in other words, one form in which thoughts exist. In another sense, ideas are like images. With this in mind, he proceeds to articulate that an image of something is never more real than the something itself. The object (cause or model) of some idea (effect of cause) has to have at least as much reality as the idea. Upon further reflection, he realizes also that something cannot come from nothing, nor can something great come from something less great. In addition, Descartes states that “although one idea may originate from another, there cannot be an infinite regress here; eventually one must reach a primary idea.”
What conclusions can be reached here? Descartes asks. After careful thought, he puts forth that if any of his ideas (images) turns out to be so great that they could not originate within himself, it would mean that there must be some other cause. The obvious question that follows then is, is there such a great idea? Descartes proceeds to go through a list of ideas. There are ideas which represent the infinite (God), and there are ideas which represent the finite. According to Descartes finite ideas come in two classes - the inanimate and the corporeal. Descartes has little, if any, trouble in realizing that inanimate ideas can easily be explained away as the thinker synthesizing other images to create new ones. For example, the idea of an angel might just be the idea of a person and the idea of wings sown together. As far as corporeal ideas are concerned, Descartes claims to see any such greatness that would be difficult that would make them inconceivable to the thinker.
However, the infinite realm does seem inconceivable to Descartes. The very description of God seems impossible to Descartes to fully understand. God, as he understands, is “a substance that is infinte, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else.” These characteristics are far too great for Descartes to comprehend. Since this is the case, God necessarily exists as the cause of the idea of God. Furthermore, when considering God exists as the cause, along with the notions that the cause cannot be any less great than the effect (the idea), and an object is only perfect if it exists, Descartes states the perfect cause must exist. “God necessarily exists.”
Last edited:
? If you've read them, you'll be able to understand and critique what I'm sayng. Keep track of the numbers as they correspond to both Descartes statements and my critique.
